Comment on People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

• SpiffyPotato@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That’s a great question and I’m not sure I have a definitive answer. For lack of better description, it would be the vibe I got from them:

  • Do I feel like they’re being deliberately argumentative.
  • Do I feel like they’re trying to twist my words in an unkind way.
  • Are they looking for ways to find offence in what I’ve said.

  source
• lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  How do you determine what’s not in good faith?

  I personally always assume good faith. I can’t read people’s minds. On the Internet, I can’t even see facial expressions or hear how they’re saying it. It’s like that Key and Peele text message sketch.

  source

  • Yliaster@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that’s ever-present online?

    source

    • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.

      source

      • Yliaster@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• clean_anion@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I assume good faith unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. I try to adopt a more general version of WP:AGF in life.

  source